OT: deos tihs rlaely wrok?
- pixyy
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: Just updating my profile after 16+ years of C&F membership. Sold most of my flutes, play the ones I still own and occasionally still enjoy coming here and read about flute related subjects.
- Location: Denmark
OT: deos tihs rlaely wrok?
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Sttsioch uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
ceehiro
ceehiro
flute clips
Some Tunes on my Box.net
Some Tunes on my Box.net
- Tak_the_whistler
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Japan
And here's the article:
The U.S. Grammer Guild Monday announced that no more will traditional grammer rules English follow. Combined with this will there new form of organising sentences and spellnigs be, said the Gulid, and that tehy wtih Scittcosh Uinervitsies colabolrtae.
"Onperatig uendr we are, one mjaor rlue", siad Joyce Waettrs, perdisnet of the U.S. Gmrmaar Gliud. "Mkae Esngilh, wnat we, mroe achriac and dengifiid suiondng to be, as if ervey wrod cnomig form the tnouge of a cenrituens-old, mtysiacl wirzad, is."
<><
Tak
---------------------------------------
<b>"Nothing can be yours by nature."</b>
--- Lewis
Tak
---------------------------------------
<b>"Nothing can be yours by nature."</b>
--- Lewis
- MacEachain
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Co. Antrim
-
- Posts: 2258
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
trust me, this is NOT the biggest waste of tax money I've seen in my life, which is really sad when you think about it.
<i>The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.</i>
- MacEachain
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Co. Antrim
I would say that the 'first and last sounds' not first and last letters, need to be the same. I did fine with most of what was written Pix (but wondered whether you were punch drunk until I got into the paragraph) except for the final cheerio, when you broke up the C and H.
The other question is whether it works in all languages. Can some of us non-English speaking folks try it out on unsuspecting friends?
The other question is whether it works in all languages. Can some of us non-English speaking folks try it out on unsuspecting friends?
Remember, you didn't get the tiger so it would do what you wanted. You got the tiger to see what it wanted to do. -- Colin McEnroe
- mat
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:31 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: WELSH BORDERS
During a recent spell of academia I was researching attitudes to risk and came accross a 'scientific' paper based upon an experiment whereby the researcher attempted to induce fright in ducklings using a polystyrene cliff.MacEachain wrote:If taxpayers money was spent on this research, somebody needs their "asre wlel and turely keicekd"
Cheers, Mac
One might consider this cruel if it wasnt so ridiculous!
- mat
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:31 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: WELSH BORDERS
Re: OT: deos tihs rlaely wrok?
Shouldn't that be "a Sttsioch Uinervtisy"?pixyy wrote:Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Sttsioch uinervtisy,
Terhe rllaey is no eucsxe for sopply gmmarar!
- Zubivka
- Posts: 3308
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Sol-3, .fr/bzh/mesquer
Hey, it deos wrok arwihgt!
alsojusttryandsuppresseveryspacebetweenwordsandmostpeoplewhocanreadilyreadwillhavenoproblems
afterallthespaceseparatingwordsandcapitalizingsomeisamodernasinmediævalinventionlikecapitalsandsmallcharsandgenerally punctuationperiodnextline
JUSTTHINKOFTHETROJANCOLUMNANDPLEASEDONTMENTIONTHEDOTSTHEYREBARELYLEGIBLE
Now, it smees fnippilg the letters wroks not the smae dipendeng wehn you laernt to raed, tihs at laest in Fcanre:
the old school would read every syllable, then build the word. This being the long, but precise, way.
the newer, fatser motheds, seem to taech by pettarns, i.e. mroe lkie rezognicing a driwang (i.e. smoe knid of hiegorlyph in thier pirme sense, or rethar idoegarms--a full-wrods besad sombilysm) rethar than alphebatical, ortanoded, heirachrical, cunstroctiun. Nyadawos, I DO hvae to fcae a bit of truoble with kids, in oredr they'll raed waht's wttiren, not waht they fnacy.
You may spot, in the random example above, that the shorter the word, the easier it's identified; over three syllables, some of these spoonerisms do take some effort to dig.
Now, when kids take this pattern of reading, it seems they have more troubles learning new words, because they seem to mentally substitute something they know already for something they should discover. At least, this is my own interpretation of growing dyslexia... Also, they do seem to have some wee problems with spilleng. It makes sense: a new word is something to 1) recognize as such 2) check for meaning and/or spelling in a dictionary. Ignore it, and it seems you can read... "So, why wocking furry?" Rihgt?
alsojusttryandsuppresseveryspacebetweenwordsandmostpeoplewhocanreadilyreadwillhavenoproblems
afterallthespaceseparatingwordsandcapitalizingsomeisamodernasinmediævalinventionlikecapitalsandsmallcharsandgenerally punctuationperiodnextline
JUSTTHINKOFTHETROJANCOLUMNANDPLEASEDONTMENTIONTHEDOTSTHEYREBARELYLEGIBLE
Now, it smees fnippilg the letters wroks not the smae dipendeng wehn you laernt to raed, tihs at laest in Fcanre:
the old school would read every syllable, then build the word. This being the long, but precise, way.
the newer, fatser motheds, seem to taech by pettarns, i.e. mroe lkie rezognicing a driwang (i.e. smoe knid of hiegorlyph in thier pirme sense, or rethar idoegarms--a full-wrods besad sombilysm) rethar than alphebatical, ortanoded, heirachrical, cunstroctiun. Nyadawos, I DO hvae to fcae a bit of truoble with kids, in oredr they'll raed waht's wttiren, not waht they fnacy.
You may spot, in the random example above, that the shorter the word, the easier it's identified; over three syllables, some of these spoonerisms do take some effort to dig.
Now, when kids take this pattern of reading, it seems they have more troubles learning new words, because they seem to mentally substitute something they know already for something they should discover. At least, this is my own interpretation of growing dyslexia... Also, they do seem to have some wee problems with spilleng. It makes sense: a new word is something to 1) recognize as such 2) check for meaning and/or spelling in a dictionary. Ignore it, and it seems you can read... "So, why wocking furry?" Rihgt?
Last edited by Zubivka on Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Jens_Hoppe
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Re: OT: deos tihs rlaely wrok?
That might a bit of a stretch...pixyy wrote:wouthit porbelm.